Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Roissy revels in the hate

We here at CH have noticed an uptick lately in game and sexual market denialist hate. The shrillness of the hater crowd has reached fever pitch, and that’s a strong tell that they know their carefully cultivated worldview is coming under attack. Good. There’s nothing like the smell of desperation in the morning.

Here’s a suggestion for the perspiring haters who find themselves scampering into this happy hating ground: First, know that you are up against an enemy the likes of which you have never encountered before. Second, learn to distinguish between is and ought. The Chateau revels in the fun of laying bare the clanking gears of reality and observing the result as the crisis of a thousand consciences unfolds, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we like the world this way, or would want the world, if we had our druthers, to be this way. CH simply gives you the Word; what you do with the Word is your prerogative.

I, too, have noticed a small, but increasing amount of hostility in the comments here, although less from feminists who have largely learned to give the superintelligence a wide berth on the Internet than from white knights, blue pillers, and dubious deltas and gammas. I suspect this indicates that awareness of Game is on the verge of reaching a new plateau, as the insanity of the extremes to which the Female Imperative is driving institutions and individuals alike is becoming more and more apparent to even the most determinedly myopic men.

It's also worth noting that Roissy et al clearly understand what so many inept critics don't. Pick-up artistry is merely the tip on the iceberg of Game. The same elements that the pick-up artists utilize are, necessarily, present in all other inter-sexual relations. So not only does it make perfect sense for Game to be of utility in other applications, it is entirely illogical to claim that it is even theoretically possible for Game to be limited to the art of picking up women.

Roissy is underlining something I have repeatedly attempted, with varying degrees of success, to explain to the skeptical: "what you do with the Word is your prerogative". Game is like gravity, and gravity doesn't care if you use it to launch satellites or smash skulls. It simply exists, and one denies its existence at one's peril.

There's a dumb story at the WSJ now on porn, and I think the inverse is true: many commenters are surprised that anyone would do anything other than parrot the feminist line, while being completely blindsided by the comments of men who really aren't going to be the lapdogs of a feminist regulatory impulse. The comments grossly outstrip (ha) the level of thought in the story. Caution: the story is beyond stupid, numerically, methodologically, and in its usual veiled agenda.

Game and the modern day writers still have my full support even when they say things that are rather blushy for a female reader but entirely appropriate for men. Maybe to some degree, women don't belong on Game pages, it is really for the men to discus among themselves.

Game must be supported as feminism fails and ultimately ends with the baby boomers.

But there is a reward system for the white-knights and blue-pill crowd, or they wouldn't engage in the behavior. It may be destructive or addictive, but something pings the reward center.

I suspect the only error in the cartoon is the solitary nature. And the lack of long ears. Women tell them, but also their male peers, that playing white-knight is the right thing to do. You get accepted by the warren.

There is a bird that to protect its nest will run awkwardly along the groung feigning injury to draw a predator away. Women are doing something like this to the gammas - even if they have the upper hand, they appear weak since those men have a chivalry instinct. But the same women reward Alphas in their way.

At some level, they are all getting what they want. Not everything, but they choose which.

The feminist regulatory impulse is an out of control hamster wheel. And women must be reminded to tame that wheel or not throw waste in their own henhouze of origin and worldview. When out of control hamster wheels spin wildly, the henhouze riles up, men must temper the henhouze or control your woman.

Women, feminists, the equality freaks and the happiness addicts cannot win in attempting to debase Game. They will always fail.

Any relationship based on equality or feminism or whatever idiot female dream a women weaves into her reality is going to be unhappy, visionless and void of leadership.

@BV thanks for the link. In addition to the entrepreneur strike Vox mentioned on his other blog, the marriage strike is a similar response - both to government oppression - destroying businesses and families.

"Roissy is underlining something I have repeatedly attempted, with varying degrees of success, to explain to the skeptical: "what you do with the Word is your prerogative". Game is like gravity, and gravity doesn't care if you use it to launch satellites or smash skulls. It simply exists, and one denies its existence at one's peril."

eh, sort of. I mean girls get tired/angry if you keep the game running tightly and then don't fuck them. a little more rigorously, you can think of game as the solution to the problem of

max attractiveness over all the variables in your life you have control over. In the beginning, for the most the (low-ranking) sirs there's not going to be a trade-off with Christianity, but the attractiveness maximizing strategy is not the Christian one (for instance, running game on housewives might inspire them to sin in their hearts, and then it is better that you might be thrown into the sea).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but among those of you successful in your endeavors, isn't game the very thing that does overcome hypergamy?

I've been hearing more and more this moaning of the inevitable hypergamy in women that will destroy the marriage. That it's hopeless. The men who confess "no, I have learned the nature of my wife, I respond accordingly when necessary thereby appeasing her hypergamous nature within our own relationship" are told (by the "it's hopeless" crowd) that it's a ticking time bomb and just a matter of time. The women who confess, "no, my husband satisfies my hypergamous nature and keeps me ever attracted to him" are called exceptional, that they got their Alphas (even when it has been demonstrated that he is a natural Delta).

I struggle to understand what it is that these men who insist game is anti-Christian and no woman who would need a man to emulate Alpha characteristics/behavior is worth it. They find themselves soft landings to garner support by other Christian MGTOWs who do burn for women, who spend their time bemoaning the condition of women, but yet who claim to have sworn off women and marriage - will remain unmarried until the perfect chaste virgin woman is hand delivered to them from God above.

Their message is eerily similar to a feminist cat lady message who spends her time yammering on and on of the evils of men. She remains fat and unattractive and her protestation reveals that indeed she does desire a relationship with a man but holds tight to a sheer laziness or willful obstinance to not do what it would take to attract a man.

"Their message is eerily similar to a feminist cat lady message who spends her time yammering on and on of the evils of men. She remains fat and unattractive and her protestation reveals that indeed she does desire a relationship with a man but holds tight to a sheer laziness or willful obstinance to not do what it would take to attract a man."

I've been very successful at having sex with women,didn't need any "game" training,but the qualities which lead women to submit to me in the bedroom don't translate into any long-term commitment or fidelity from women and I don't expect it.

I'm not going to get married,ever,even if the option becomes available to me,handwrapped in a nice little pretty box with a note saying "From God",not because I expect a perfect chaste virgin but because my brothers are languishing in jail,debt,living under a bridge,or rotting in the ground because women who didn't give a damn about them put them there.

I don't have much power over the system, but I can hold a few women back from their dream of marrying a future ex-husband,so I'll do that. Maybe if I do, a few more men won't decide to take their own lives today.

It's hard to judge if game works if it isn't even clearly defined. The most common definition is so broad and inclusive that most of the audience just assumes that anything that improves your attractiveness is game. If that's the case how can it be denied.

Beyond that there are aspects of game that essentially amount to projecting a false confidence. How well this works, and for how long, and on which girls and what those girls actually look like is again hard to judge because all we really have is the anecdotal evidence of blogger-puas and some of their commenters.

"Roissy is underlining something I have repeatedly attempted, with varying degrees of success, to explain to the skeptical: "what you do with the Word is your prerogative". Game is like gravity, and gravity doesn't care if you use it to launch satellites or smash skulls. It simply exists, and one denies its existence at one's peril."

This is what has taken me some time to roil around about but crave to see carved out: Game is more than PUA. It is encouraging and invigorating to see a growing community of like-minded leaders of men.

(The swagger in the writing at The Chateau is hard to not appreciate, as well.)

@SDYou're sniffing out a bunch of competing fallacies - and they make a lot of noise in the comment spaces. A lot of things are broken within our western society (including the Church) and they need to be addressed separately. Confusion and hurt feelings will easily derail a discussion. Some specific cases that you touched on:

inevitable hypergamy [...] will destroy the marriage.The FALLACY: It's a ticking time bomb that will inevitably explode any marriage, regardless of game or any other effort.The underlying TRUTH: Hypergamy won't go away, ever. It has to be countered or it marinates and grows and eventually erupts. Human nature after all.The SOLUTION: Some game will help to disarm hypergamy, and a quality woman will resist it herself, not completely eliminating the natural problem, but making the task dramatically easier. The odds improve.

game is anti-Christian and no woman who would need a man to emulate Alpha characteristics/behavior is worth it."The FALLACY: Game acknowledges and manipulates sinful human nature and therefore encourages more sin.The underlying TRUTH: Game is an amoral, academic approach based on observed facts. And these facts are frequently uncomfortable and at odds with popular ideology. As Vox and others pointed out, the application of the facts is up to the practitioner.The SOLUTION: Understanding men and women and making good choices based on that info will help men and women to achieve their goals. It's not always easy, but the odds of success rise dramatically when the rules are clear.

Hurt feelings and deep-seated fear probably generate these arguments that Game is either good or bad all in its own right. Given the multi-generational wreck that we've endured within our families, expect some skittish behavior.

Keep pointing out the utility of this information and hope that more people can adjust their thinking - and cope better with the human reality - even when it's ugly.

OT. Speaking of porn. A friend of mine has found that her live-in bf/soon to be second husband is viewing porn. She has confronted him, he said he would stop, he hasn't. Since she has expressed this is a HUGE problem, I've suggested she delay the wedding to sort things out - or accept it. This got me wondering what role porn plays in a man's life in a monogamous committed relationship.

Daniel: If she doesn't like the porn, the solution is easy: have a lot more sex with him.

I forgot to mention, amount of sex seems to be the "rub." HE doesn't want to have as much sex as she does (I even advised her to give him a BJ in the kitchen - advice read here - and she did; she's willing). Hence, she figures he doesn't find her attractive. To complicate matters, she has two beautiful daughters in early 20's, one lives with them . . . the plot thickens.

I'd like to hear more about the "porn is not a huge problem" thing. That's kinda my take, but if it's a HUGE problem to her, it won't go away as a problem for him, know what I mean?

Hurt feelings and deep-seated fear probably generate these arguments that Game is either good or bad all in its own right. Given the multi-generational wreck that we've endured within our families, expect some skittish behavior.

This makes sense considering what Anon said about why he won't get married and what his objective is:

I'm not going to get married,ever,even if the option becomes available to me,handwrapped in a nice little pretty box with a note saying "From God",not because I expect a perfect chaste virgin but because my brothers are languishing in jail,debt,living under a bridge,or rotting in the ground because women who didn't give a damn about them put them there.

I don't have much power over the system, but I can hold a few women back from their dream of marrying a future ex-husband,so I'll do that. Maybe if I do, a few more men won't decide to take their own lives today.

When one observes the writings of men in successful long term marriages (Vox, Nate, Daniel, Athol Kay) and then further observes the writings of men who have recently chosen marriage (Josh, VryeDenker, Loki), one can see there are men who, having the same information, are either overcoming the challenge or taking on the challenge. To whom should a Christian man who burns with desire for women listen to? (Which is the same thing I tell Christian women who desire successful marriages - to whom should you listen? A fat, ugly, cat lady or a woman who is in a successful, biblically based marriage?)

Perhaps it all boils down to men who choose to do their part to preserve Western Civilization by contributing to its future and those who could care less.

The benefit is those who could care less will leave nothing behind of a legacy.

Perhaps it all boils down to men who choose to do their part to preserve Western Civilization by contributing to its future and those who could care less.

The benefit is those who could care less will leave nothing behind of a legacy.

The future belongs to those who show up for it.

My advice for men complaining that they haven't found a woman worthy of marriage would be to cast your nets on the other side of the boat: there are plenty of young, pretty, feminine, Christian girls out there. Although your odds greatly improve if you're in rural or southern territory.

@loweenie: That creeper is obviously not there for the old lady. If she loves her children she should turn him out. Not that it is likely to happen.

So depressing.

As a side bar, Game has helped me understand how most women act. But, not my wife. While some aspects of Game apply to her like an attraction to my irrational self-confidence, it seems as though many don't. She seems to rationally prefer certain BETA characteristics over their ALPHA counterparts.

It's not about picking up the challenge or not, it's a matter of return on a man's investment and the utterly corrupt system that requires a man to run near perfect game or face things like losing all he has worked for, a sexless, joyless marriage etc etc.

The definition is perfectly clear. Cricket noises is all your criticism merits.

Perfectly clear, and utterly useless. While some bloggers like Roissy ameliorate that uselessness by supplementing the circular definition with actual examples of game, you don't. You've set yourself up as an authority on "game" but you don't really present any. There is such a thing as game but calling it "whatever popular guys do" doesn't help anyone. In the meantime guys who don't actively dig for it and remain on sites like this end up thinking they're running game cause they now hit the gym a couple of times a week and smirk a lot. Keep refusing to consider valid criticism though, it's all about who's got the "frame", playa.

SD wrote: The women who confess, "no, my husband satisfies my hypergamous nature and keeps me ever attracted to him" are called exceptional, that they got their Alphas (even when it has been demonstrated that he is a natural Delta).

Interestingly, I hear that same comment directed at me a lot.

@ AlanThat was a helpful comment in which you refuted some fallacies. That gives me something to think about.

There is some tiny fraction of women that can be managed in marriage by a man reasonably safely with what I'll call 'negative game'---in Vox's terms, gammas, omegas, and the lowest of deltas usually have negative game. If you pick your wife fairly carefully (zero or close to zero previous sexual partners, parents and close family with no history of divorce, takes her religion seriously even when her hamster wants something else), you can get by with zero, but not negative game. Most guys in our grandfather's generation had zero game, in the sense that they just avoided being a doormat, took their women dancing and led on the dance floor, etc. Just getting to zero would help an awful lot of people, given society's efforts to drive them deep into the negatives. Positive game is what you need to handle a typical woman in the US today. Unless positive game is something you can manage over a long time with low energy expenditure, don't marry a woman who requires it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but among those of you successful in your endeavors, isn't game the very thing that does overcome hypergamy?

I've been hearing more and more this moaning of the inevitable hypergamy in women that will destroy the marriage. That it's hopeless....

What you're hearing is the rallying cry of the Red Pill Gamma. "It's all hopeless and someone else is to blame. Oh, woe is me, let's wallow in my misery."

Gamma = heterosexual male with feminine thought patterns. Gammas lack the self-motivational drive of "normal" men to be in at least some control of their own destinies. They look for someone else to solve their problems for them, and therefore someone else to blame when their problems don't get solved.

Absent significant rewiring of their brains (which may actually be possible, I'm not sure one way or the other at this point), they are incapable of using Game because they incapable of commanding their own lives.

So Red Pill Gammas are among the most wretched creatures, because they have seen the truth and realize they are SOL. To make themselves feel better about their lot, they imagine that the Alphas and higher Betas who are successfully married are ultimately doomed. "Hypergamy will get them too, just you wait and see! Their happiness and success is a lie! A lie I tell you!"

I mock and derride Gammas as a service to the rest of the spectrum, so that the bitterness doesn't dissuade someone capable of using Game to better his life.

Michael,They had what you might call 'structural alpha', because society reinforced their position relative to their wives rather than undermined it. Now they've got 'structural beta', which devalues their provider role substantially because society partly mitigates a lot of the consequences of getting involved with/sleeping with/whoring after guys with high alpha and low beta (using Athol's convention).

A few thoughts on porn from the perspective of a man who is probably older than most of you.

A healthy married life requires regular sex. Regular sex requires keeping short accounts in the relationship -- i.e., not holding grudges, resolving conflicts, forgiving, etc. Fortunately, regular sex also makes those problems less frequent and less intense, but the point is that the desire for sex is itself an incentive to keep the relationship in good shape.

To the extent that porn dulls the need to have sex with your wife, it also dulls your desire to do the maintenance you need to do on your relationship.

Absolutely loveryly. I don't know, that hate I feel directed by haters, when it's personal and right in front of me? I feel like the Emperor forging my alliance with Anakin Skywalker. Feel the hate, it makes you stronger, I might suggest. I fed it like stoking a fire. Hell, it makes them mine, if I didn't necessarily suggest that until the time was right. Welcome to the dark side. But it is my side and you are a pawn to your sensations, I am a master. I will have you through your false desires as I would have any other object I desire.

That is why I am not a typical alpha, or certainly pua. I was in it for the existential mana of the "relationship", sex was a gift... or need... of hers that I would tend at my leisure. Or that is how it was. Firebrands, shrews, lesbians, and feminists... that's what I was after. Feel the burn! Nummy!

My last called me Darth Vader. Until she realized that I both enjoyed it, and what that made her. By the end, she could barely squeeze out and "I hate you!" without knowing a bit too much, and some astral shame. I really liked that one.

How does one even recover, even finding God's graces, with that as the backdrop? Meh, His will, not mine.

I agree with the basic precepts of game. I just dislike the culture surrounding it. Seems to be primarily for elderly dorks by elderly dorks. As a wise man once said, don't take dating advice from a guy who wasn't prom king.

Now, if people like this guy made up a larger part of the game community, I'd like it much more...http://manlyexcellence.com/2012/08/29/viking-supremacy-by-hammer-of-thunor/

more interesting is the post which begins My date kicked me hard in the shin under the table.. 911! Domestic violence! ... oh, never mind.

@Crowhill, see Dalrock's "Firebombed" post

A society that permits women to do whatever they want with no consequences But there are consequences which cannot be ameliorated.

@ray But real sigmas don't care, so will tell you outright that "I'm a super-intelligence". Especially if they are one. So are you standard, or how far does your deviance go?

@JA Gammas who only have taken half of the red pill - then take half the blue pill so they can have it both ways end up the color of Gamma Rabbit. A shade of Magentelmanliness. A gamma that takes the entire red pill can either adopt celibacy if he is a Christian or become a PUA.

@Jehu Our grandfathers either adopted the Christian (or natural law / Tao) version of marriage and man-woman connection, or pantomimed even if they did not really believe in the traditional values. Not unlike PUAs pantomime alpha today.

@SD - it requires two to tango, and many of the examples are of good fortune and where the wife converted. Spacebunny's soul is beautiful and will be long past when her body shows wear and tear. I am single because I don't want to "roll the dice". There are also numerous stories of Christian couples where the woman backslides and does the horrible evils the government allows - a quick search will reveal many stories within the Christian manosphere and I know personally of such a tragedy (a fat sow went psycho, but that is what our legal system allows)... II... Game does not OVERCOME hypergamy, but acknowledges it. How should I react to a fit-test? Should a husband and wife assume roles that make things easier or harder, in line with nature or against? Game itself is not sin or even temptation, it is knowledge, data, wisdom. If the wife is more pleased by assertiveness than acquiescence, ought not the husband be assertive?

Spacebunny's soul is beautiful and will be long past when her body shows wear and tear.

Yes, and I am quite fond of her.

However I wonder how much the men I listed view their circumstances as good fortune ("you were lucky") - doesn't that undermine the work these men put into being men of strength and good character, of prioritizing for them selves the development of the very qualities respected men posses?

Doesn't that deny the very real sin nature still present within the women they've married? (Shhh, don't tell anyone but I've actually read Spacebunny's use of a...swear word.)

She seems to rationally prefer certain BETA characteristics over their ALPHA counterparts

That's not unusual. In fact it's the standard. The impact of alpha is attraction, attraction is disturbing for women. There's no everyday life when being disturbed all the time. To put it another way: imagine your wife being constantly shaken to exhaustion by orgasms while feeding her newborn. It's impractical.

IoweenieI'd like to hear more about the "porn is not a huge problem" thing. That's kinda my take, but if it's a HUGE problem to her, it won't go away as a problem for him, know what I mean?

Oh, your further description clears things up. What her HUGE problem is is that she's got a live-in 2nd husband-to-be who is riding her at the lowest level of commitment possible. Her HUGE problem is that he may not a) like her that much or b) needs her for purposes other than her company.

The porn is a symptom. Attacking that isn't going to get to the truth.

Normal issues with porn (i.e. the result of infrequent sex or female rejection of the spouse) even if they are seemingly pathological, are almost always solved with good sex, which is why I don't think it is rocket science to solve.

The people I know who had the HUGE problem syndrome had one of three things going on a) the wife had gotten fat b) the couple was not married and the man was looking for an out or c) the woman wanted out and needed something to feel wronged by.

I'm not saying porn isn't a problem. Just not a HUGE one in a good relationship.

I did know one guy who was both insane for and guilt-ridden about porn, but the porn was the least of his obvious problems. Solving that wouldn't have made him a decent person.

I explained it to a young unmarried acquaintance of mine this way years ago. What's your favorite meal? Tacos? Great, you like tacos, right? You LOVE tacos. Now, eat tacos three times a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for the rest of your life. You're free to put a little pico de gallo on it every so often if you like but you still are limited to tacos only. Yeah, after awhile that pork chop be lookin' pretty good. Porn is like getting to look at the Red Lobster menu before you go sit down top another helping of tacos.

Daniel: The people I know who had the HUGE problem syndrome had one of three things going on a) the wife had gotten fat b) the couple was not married and the man was looking for an out or c) the woman wanted out and needed something to feel wronged by.

Yeah, after awhile that pork chop be lookin' pretty good. Porn is like getting to look at the Red Lobster menu before you go sit down top another helping of tacos.

Man, that's bleak. I hope you're not in the business of giving sex advice to people hoping to get married, particularly women, because this sure as hell won't inspire any woman to a) tolerate porn in the marriage, and b) have regular enthusiastic sex with her husband. I can see the hamster spinning it thusly: if he has NO tacos for a month, then he'll REALLY want tacos ...

I've counseled a significant number of Christian men over the past twenty years and I believe porn to be a significant issue, inciting lust in most men. I advise them to give up all sexual outlets but their wife and game her like crazy to get back into a normal sexual life. A marriage without regular sex is a dying marriage.

Perfectly clear, and utterly useless. While some bloggers like Roissy ameliorate that uselessness by supplementing the circular definition with actual examples of game, you don't. You've set yourself up as an authority on "game" but you don't really present any.

Right, that's why this blog is one of the most popular Game blogs and why the other major Game bloggers think well of it. They understand what I'm doing. You don't.

Look, if you find no value in it, that's fine. Don't read it. I don't think I could be any more clear: I don't value your criticism and I find your take on things to be reliably irrelevant.

Why are you wasting your time here? Do you crave the attention or something? Are you really that concerned that you think someone is wrong on the Internet?

If you think you have something to say, start your own blog. If people value what you say, they will come. Here, you're just an anklebiter whose opinions are mostly ignored.

Interesting post. There’s little doubt in my mind that Game (as it's currently being described in the Manosphere) is a useful secular tool. However, since there’s a lot of discussion lately about whether or not it’s suitable for a Christian, I thought I’d take a stab at explaining why it probably isn't. Please bear with me as I try to reason this out.

The current situation is that men are attacked from all directions by men and women alike who want to make them uncomfortable about their masculinity. Christian men are not immune - the demonization of male sexuality from the pulpit is a weekly ritual in some churches and the use of shaming language such as “man up” or suggestions that men who object to such treatment mustn’t be quite right in their faith are not uncommon. Some men respond by retreating from church or blindly accepting the shaming language as deserved criticism, while others adopt the Alpha persona proposed by Game. The problem is, none of these approaches are biblical. Where in the NT do we see an example of God responding favourably to a man retreating from Him in order to serve his wife better, or pretending to be someone other than whom God creates?

There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with exploring imaginative notions of gender relations as long as there’s no sin involved, but we ought not ignore the precepts of liberty and faith revealed by God's Word whenever new trends in popular culture find their way into the church. Game is an example of such a popular trend. The way it is developing seems more the result of cultural hegemony than through an understanding of Christian character. It seems to be an example of how easily the values of the surrounding culture can be given a scriptural polish and elevated to the level of other moral and spiritual norms.

Game in its current form categorises and stereotypes both men and women in terms of their psychosexual responses to each other and neither in terms of ambassadorship for Christ carrying on a ministry of reconciliation. It has inklings of the latter, but it is still attached at the hip to gender sexuality instead of healthy spirituality. In spiritual terms, Christians - male and female alike - are to exhibit spiritual fruits as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:22-23), which seem quite different to those required by Game.

My concern about Game isn’t because I don't think it doesn't work in certain situations, or that feministed Christian men and women aren't desperate for a revival in masculine Christian strength. My concern is for the theological and ecclesiastical consequences of bringing it into the church. Promoting this particular view of masculinity in the church is, I believe, destructive to the church’s embodiment of the gospel and to its being the sort of community God intends it to be.

The Gospel of Matthew tells us about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus initiates what is sometimes referred to as ‘the great reversal’. The Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-10) in that sermon turn typical human assumptions about who is blessed by God upside down. While Game views the strong, the self-confident and the sexually powerful as blessed, Jesus declares the poor, the mournful, the self-abasing and the meek as blessed in the Kingdom of God.

Most Christians understand that the beatitudes are not just traits to be acquired, but rather the recognition that, in the Kingdom of God, those formerly thought to be untouchable are now capable of feeling the hand of God. The church, as the manifestation of God’s kingdom, is to be the place where the reality of God’s reign is most truly manifested, and those considered unworthy in the world are welcomed with open arms into the blessed life of Christ.

The problem with Game, then, is that it promotes socially and culturally based notions of manhood as necessarily definitive of what masculinity should look like. This implies that those who don't fit the stereotype are considered somehow defective or lacking. It also implies that the cultural status quo comes to define what is normal for the church, which, in effect, re-reverses the great reversal that Christ brings about. If men in our churches follow this path, churches may no longer embrace men who do not have Game, resorting instead to the same sort of man-shaming and ridiculing so common in the blogosphere. As such, the churches witness to, and embodiment of the gospel is compromised.

In summary, our dissatisfaction with contemporary gender relations will not be cured by conformity to socially and culturally defined notions, which we then attempt to baptise and bring into the church. Such notions may, in fact, lead to the opposite of the blessed life and undermine both the gospel and the church. The blessed life comes from entering into the redeemed life made available in Christ and in seeking to cultivate His character within ourselves, male and female alike.

Hi Alan,Well, we've been discussing if game plays into women's sin natures or not recently on my site. I can see both sides of the argument. The way you phrased game as being a way of "understanding men and women and making good choices based on that info will help men and women to achieve their goals" was interesting to me because I hadn't thought of it simply as an awareness or an understanding. I've thought of game more as a set of tools that allow you to sort of reflexively manipulate someone, the way like when the doctor hits your knee with the rubber mallet, it jerks.

She seems to rationally prefer certain BETA characteristics over their ALPHA counterparts

One of the common mistakes is to assume that all provider characteristics are anti-alpha. The reality is that there are positive provider characteristics and positive alpha characteristics, and they need to be in balance. Narciso Babaero even has some great posts about the right balance in a long term relationship, which he claims is 3 parts beta to 5 parts alpha. (Google him for a crisp dose of brilliance.)

I wish the manosphere would stop using "beta" for both provider traits and traits that are simply sexually repellent. It creates a lot of confusion. Provider behaviors like buying a woman gifts or complimenting her looks are like spices: excellent in small quantities, repulsive in large. Omega behaviors like apologizing after she rejects a physical escalation are disgusting in any quantity.

real "alphas" dont have to say that they are a Superintelligence, or that their pronouncements = the Word

The usual misconception about alphas: that they don't crow about their superiority. But yes, yes they do. Alphas are at the top of the social hierarchy and WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW IT. Not all the time, but certainly when someone seems to be forgetting.

It's not about picking up the challenge or not, it's a matter of return on a man's investment and the utterly corrupt system that requires a man to run near perfect game or face things like losing all he has worked for, a sexless, joyless marriage etc etc.

@SSM: I haven't waded through all of your recent comments, so I'm unaware. If anyone is trying to prove that game is intrinsically evil, I expect that they are using anecdotal evidence or a particular interpretation. I could go look at the thread, but time slips away. A relevant link would help. I see that a commenter above is asserting that game contradicts scripture, but the suppositions seem shaky. We'll see where that goes...

Anyhow, your "tool kit" analogy works well for me, too, because I can use a tire iron to fix a flat or crush a skull. The utility of the tool is separate from any moral choice, until it's put into use.

Similarly, I can use my understanding of game to protect my wife and daughters from danger (fallen nature, poor judgment, predators, etc.) or use the same knowledge to undermine marriages left and right, cutting a swath of hedonistic destruction through my neighborhood. What do I pursue? This is where the moral distinction exists.

Ignorance doesn't protect me. Wisdom does. I can't avoid the world, so long as I'm in it.

Oversimplification is dangerous and leads to things like this:* People don't kill, guns do. Ban them and violence will end.* An understanding of game leads to fornication. Avoid any discussion (or even worse, the application) of sexual triggers, lest some weak soul might stumble.* Men as the larger gender are capable of rape, at any moment. Treat them all as criminals, just to be safe.

"You use the word 'challenge', but I do not think it means what you think it means. Challenge implies that a prize or goal worth striving for; a difficulty worth overcoming. Lacking such worth, it is simply an irritant to be avoided. You, my dear, are merely an irritant. Run along now, and bother someone else."

Right, that's why this blog is one of the most popular Game blogs and why the other major Game bloggers think well of it. They understand what I'm doing. You don't.

I suspect most of your audience is carried over from VP, and because most of them in reality are betas as well, they have an interest in the topic. Unfortunately it doesn't end up serving their needs directly. There is a presumption and a general misunderstanding that there is game advice here when in actual fact there is little to none. The discussion is on too broad a scale to be game advice. Often, the observations are on broad social developments, especially political ones, with an eye toward an iconoclastic interpretation. Sometimes there are musings on the nature of women, but without any specific game prescriptions to capitalize on them. Beyond that, you call yourself a "game theoretician" but you apparently have no interest in investigating any deeper aspects of it: what it is, how it may be differentiated from other behaviors relevant to the SMP, specific tactics that work - why they work, and in which situations, even how game can fit with Christianity except for some very shallow declarations you've made on that topic. My little objection is just that this blog is not what it purports to be, so let's have some more accurate marketing.

Why are you wasting your time here? Do you crave the attention or something? Are you really that concerned that you think someone is wrong on the Internet?

I'm not that concerned, I'm not concerned at all. I'm simply voicing my opinion, which is the purpose of the comment section. I have an aspect of the truth as I see it to impart, which you would do well to consider, if you can get your ego out of the way for a long enough period of time to do it.

I wish the manosphere would stop using "beta" for both provider traits and traits that are simply sexually repellent. It creates a lot of confusion.

That's a good point. BETA isn't bad, isn't repellant. BETA behavior doesn't make women not like someone. It's the lack of ALPHA that does that. Absent the attraction that ALPHA creates, she's bored and unhaaaaaaaapy. But if the ALPHA is there, she likes the BETA.

I wish the manosphere would stop using "beta" for both provider traits and traits that are simply sexually repellent. It creates a lot of confusion. Provider behaviors like buying a woman gifts or complimenting her looks are like spices: excellent in small quantities, repulsive in large. Omega behaviors like apologizing after she rejects a physical escalation are disgusting in any quantity.

I suspect most of your audience is carried over from VP, and because most of them in reality are betas as well, they have an interest in the topic.

Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. Again. The readership that carried over from VP is about one-third the current readership here. The main reason I started AG was because most of the readers at VP were uninterested in the topic of intersexual relations.

Even when I do a link from VP, there is much less of an increase in traffic than other blogs see when I link to them.

I have an aspect of the truth as I see it to impart, which you would do well to consider, if you can get your ego out of the way for a long enough period of time to do it.

No, you don't. While I do value substantive criticism, I pay no attention to the reflexive lightweight anklebiting of the sort you have to offer. It's not my ego that causes me to ignore you, it's that you bring nothing to the table.

Jack Amok: "Fish tacos? Try putting some hot sauce on the next one first.

What? You asked for it. You coulda used cheeseburgers instead."

Yeah I knew the tacos were going to take me there. It's just that is actually the food he named as his favorite at the time so I went with that. I thought of going with pie but that could have gone down hill as well.

RC: "I've counseled a significant number of Christian men over the past twenty years and I believe porn to be a significant issue, inciting lust in most men. I advise them to give up all sexual outlets but their wife and game her like crazy to get back into a normal sexual life...."

This is fairly common advice in marriage counseling circles I suspect (except for the gaming part of course). Here's my problem with it: have you ever, EVER counseled the wife to get off her fat ass and lose the 50lbs she's put on? Let's be honest, if you look around America today the vast majority of women are or are becoming absolute porkers. A married guy looking at porn isn't necessarily trying to ruin the marriage, he's trying to work himself up for the task of mounting the manatee lying next to him. Monogamy requires a man to go against his basic nature to share his DNA with as many partners as he can. This can be a struggle for the best of men under the best of circumstances. So what does the modern American woman do to aid her man who has made such a commitment to her? She stuffs her face with ice cream and donuts, becomes unrecognizable from the shape she used to be and then gets in a huff when she catches him looking at women who are actually attractive on the internet.

Not to go through what you posted point by point but this is my takeaway:1. I think too many Christians misinterpret "meek" to mean "doormat". I believe "humble" to be a more accurate interpretation. Think of it; Jesus looked the religious rulers of the day in the eye (men who literally had the power to have you killed if they so chose) and called them liars, thieves and hypocrites. Does that in any way sound like the modern interpretation of "meek" to you? 2. If you have any doubt that Jesus had a dominant (alpha if you will) personality, just note the number of women they always had around them. 3. There are many facets to game, as this blog clearly illustrates. My main take away from game, since I'm married and am not in need of POA skills is that so many men in this country have absolutely forgotten how to be and act like men. Game is a tool to help them get on the path to learn to be men again. Instead of thinking of it as pretending to be something you're not think of it more in terms of learning a behavior you want to adopt into your life. When you teach a child to eat with a fork and conduct themselves respectfully, you're not trying to get them to pretend to be something they're not, you're trying to get them learn/get into the habit of demonstrating socially desirable behavior. After awhile the behavior is no longer consciously conducted but becomes a natural aspect of who they are.

I suspect porn keeps a lot of marriages going. One could likely build a pretty good case for its social desirability in that one regard.

If the wife turns the husband down, it's no big deal, there are ten thousand virtual prostitutes to whom he can turn. Is that a good thing? I don't know, but it's certainly better than divorce.

I don't think its a good thing. I keep reading over at athol's and elsewhere about women whose husbands are into porn and ignore their wives sexually. I've read that porn can actually rewire ones brain. I've read that a lot of young men have ED because they use porn so much a real woman can't get them aroused. I think it ends up that porn becomes the object instead of the substitute.

Most men in this day and age are into porn before they actually meet their wives. She has a lot to compete with.

Compared to divorce it is the lesser of two evils.

@DanShe stuffs her face with ice cream and donuts, becomes unrecognizable from the shape she used to be and then gets in a huff when she catches him looking at women who are actually attractive on the internet.

True. I think he's better off staying away from the porn, though. Not only is she fat, she's going to get fat and old. The gap will only get bigger as time goes on.

"OT. Speaking of porn. A friend of mine has found that her live-in bf/soon to be second husband is viewing porn. She has confronted him, he said he would stop, he hasn't. Since she has expressed this is a HUGE problem, I've suggested she delay the wedding to sort things out - or accept it. This got me wondering what role porn plays in a man's life in a monogamous committed relationship." May 7, 2013 at 7:03 AM

Tell the woman in question to give him no-BS (e.g., no foreplay/condoms/conditions) sex 3x a day for 2 weeks, including complete fellatio 1x a day, given whenever requested (and sincerely offered with a smile 5x a day), and see if he doesn't drop his porn watching by 90-100%. Oh, and bitching about much of anything not super urgent should be right out during that time as well.

I think Chateau is doing a great job, but I'm concerned about his readers not having as deep an understanding of the issues.

Addtionally, the manosphere destroys a lot of myths and replaces them with an adaptive strategy, aka teaching guys how to survive in this world, instead of taking a stand to change it. I rarely read about the ingredients that would bring back a good stable patriarchal society, like authority and respect, for example.

2) As far as what men can "do", I see one or more of the following as likely powerful, effective responses:

a) marriage striking, especially for sluts (particularly adultresses/mothers of bastards/frivorcers), careerist women (especially if in trad men fields), admitted feminists, and women who don't want to bear children with them;

b) refusal to pay child support, whatever it takes;

c) until such time as a decent contraceptive for men comes out, getting sperm frozen and getting vasectomies at early ages.

Watch all those eventually have HUGE effects.TELLING women they're going to do them, not so much.

Porn can be a big problem if a guy has a porn habit before the relationship. It can be a hard habit to break, and can even cause erectile problems when the one ordinary-looking woman in bed with you isn't as mentally stimulating as the daily videos you watch of hot college girls performing your favorite fetishes. (I don't suppose this was much of a problem when a "porn stash" meant a couple dog-eared copies of Penthouse.)

But when porn suddenly becomes a problem during the marriage, I'd say 99% of the time that indicates a lack of sex (or a major lack of enthusiasm on her part). A guy who's being satisfied by his wife just doesn't go looking for porn. When I've been with a woman who turned me on and enjoyed pleasing me, porn was the furthest thing from my mind (except when she suggested watching it together for ideas).

However, most women (and probably most men) have no idea how much sex men really want. We hear so much about guys getting it weekly or monthly that a woman gives in twice a week and thinks she's gone beyond the call of duty. Her husband doesn't speak up and demand more, because -- assuming he even realizes he's unsatisfied -- he hears the same news that most men are getting less than him, and he doesn't want to sound like an insatiable perv.

But in reality, I think most healthy men would like sex at least every night. I mean, why go through an entire day without sex if it's available to you? Am I crazy here? He may not need it that often to be happy, but if his wife enthusiastically said, "Hey, I'd like to try having sex every night; what do you think?" he'd think he died and went to heaven. Even an older guy who might not be able to perform 100% that often would like to try, even if sometimes it turns into something less than a mind-blowing bang.

So you've got wives thinking their husbands are getting lots of sex, while their husbands are getting it maybe 10-25% as often as they'd actually like, and neither one aware how huge the gap is. Enter porn.

Game is not a substitute for virtue, nor will it heal a marriage. It can only call a truce and be a different and more pleasant lie.

The spouse doesn't love (agape) the other, only likes the emotional fulfillment. They love the act, the façade, the illusion.

The manly virtues are virtues for the celibate the same as the married - all are called to be chaste within the state of life.

Augustine called Pagan virtues "magnificent vices", and I think this is an example. If a man puts forth effort to be manly, not because it is Christ's will, but because he wants a woman, he will lose the other virtues he might posess - mercy, meekness, and justice, or even prudence which may have grown out of his Christian walk. Exchanging true and holy virtue for worldly magnificent vices is a deal with the devil.

And it is not "good fortune" or "good luck", but the grace and blessing of God that those who are in a good marriage and have been and will be.

Roissy offers two types of analysis: 1) the fact of women's nature; and 2) the approach men should take in dealing with that nature. I don't think many people deny number 1, but there is healthy and intelligent debate to be had about number 2.

Practitioners of game take women's nature as a given and focus on changing themselves to cope with it in a society that has shed all taboos and other behavioral controls. Anti-gamers offer a variety of competing approaches. For example, MGTOW advises men to avoid serious relationships (albeit not sex) with women and focus on more important things in life. MRAs want to re-establish societal controls over female behavior to foster healthier relationships. I can see some wisdom in these arguments. After all, men should not measure our worth according to female standards or run ourselves ragged trying to satisfy them -- both represent surrender to matriarchal imperatives. Civilization is a male project, and if males are diverting our energies to compete over females on an individual basis, our civilization suffers for it (and may not even survive).

A healthy society counteracts and controls people's baser instincts on an institutional level; a moribund society, such as ours, gives those instincts free rein and leaves us to fight a war of all against all. Roissy is a prophet of the latter.